Volume 2 / Athens 2000 by Haris Exertzoglou Review of Irina Livezeanu, Cultural Politics in Greater Romania. Regionalism, Nation Building and Ethnic Struggle, 1918-1930. Cornell University Press, 1995, 340p. (+i-xvii) At the end of the Great War the Romanian state being among the victors was generously rewarded with territories which till then were parts of Austria-Hungary and imperial Russia. The annexation of Bukovina, Transylvania and Bessarabia resulted in impressive territorial increases and brought under the control of the romanian state a large population the size of which almost equaled that of the old Romanian kingdom. Yet, as was the case elsewhere the creation of Greater Romania brought together disparate populations whose social experience, historical course and cultural outlook had foIIowed quite different trajectories. The unification of the "national territory" in fact bequeathed the Romanian state new political priorities directly related to the incorporation of the annexed areas in the "national body". Irina Livezeanu's study provides a useful analysis of these issues with special emphasis on the cultural politics that the Romanian state unleashed in its recently acquired territories. The first part of the book presents a detailed discussion of the "cultural offensive" which was undertaken by the state in order to expand its grasp in the new provinces. The second part focuses on university politics and the emergence of a robust radical right wing movement that provided the basis for the founding of Romanian fascism. Although at first glance unrelated the two parts offer a common ground for discussing Romanian nationalism whose form was fashioned in response to the exigencies of nation-building during the inter-war period. In this perspective, Livezeanu's analysis avoids the pitfaIIs of conventional approaches of modern Romanian history which see in national unification the culmination of national desires and the just realignment of borders along national lines. It is argued instead that homogeneous national communities were forged only through excessive state intervention in aII fields of social and cultural activity and often at the expense of other national or religious groups which were deprived of their cultural rights. National unification was marked by profound social and cultural crises that led to the redefinition of national identities and shifted the center of politics to new grounds. Cultural politics in Greater Romania provides us with a strong case in point. Shortly after the three provinces were annexed to the Romanian state it became evident to Romanian authorities that much had to be done to align the new provinces with the Old Kingdom. The issues involved were deeply political rather than technical as it was the very authority of the Romanian state that was at stake. In aII three areas Romanian, that is Romanian speakers whether Christian Orthodox or Uniate, formed the majority, but their cultural and educational level and political position was far inferior to the privileged non-Romanian minorities who had prospered under the previous imperial regimes, Hungarians, Germans and Jews in Transylvania and Bukovina and Russians and Jews in Bessarabia. Livezeanu asserts that uneven cultural and political power reflected ethnic distribution along an urban/rural division. Whereas Romanians provided the bulk of the peasant population of the newly acquired areas, their share in the towns was smaII, even insignificant. Minorities on the other hand had a long urban tradition and their proportion of the urban population was high. As it was conceived at the time this situation presented the Romanian state with a double chaIIenge. First, to expand education among the Romanian peasantry whose iIIiteracy level was extremely high and second to face up to the local elites which were directly associated with the minorities. These tasks, hard as they were, were undertaken in a context of broad political and economic reforms. The drafting of a new constitution in 1922 extended political rights making provision for universal [male] suffrage, including the political emancipation of the Jews, whose rights in the Old Kingdom were severely restricted. Political reforms were coupled by measures taken at the same time with the effect of dividing the great estates and distributing them among the landless peasants. Far from being a direct product of national unification these measures rather reveal the social anxieties of the Romanian state and of the dominant Liberal Party as well as the conditions forced upon Romania by her allies. Agricultural reform and universal male suffrage was the post war response to the challenge of increasing political agitation among peasants which had culminated in the great agricultural revolt of 1907. The emancipation of the Jews was the product of Romania's international obligations stemming from the Treaty for the Protection of Minorities which Romanian leaders grudgingly signed in 1919. Despite such liberal democratic reforms, the policies pursued in the new provinces were of an increasingly authoritarian and centralizing character. Drawing upon pre-war educational policy, Romanian authorities strove to create and expand a network of Romanian public primary and secondary schools in all three areas despite the lack of efficient personnel. Former Romanian confessional schools were also nationalized along with a large number of minority schools in urban centers of Transylvania, Bukovina and Bessarabia. The expansion of Romanian schools went hand in hand with the systematic undermining of the social and cultural position of the minorities. Contrary to the country's international obligations, Romanian authorities invented various measures for curtailing the educational rights of urban minorities, especially of the Magyars and the Jews. Minority schools still in existence were confronted with various obstacles, whereas the use in education of any language other than Romanian was often forbidden. To back their claims upon minority schools Romanian authorities often used the argument that a large part of the non Romanian population in the rural areas, such as the Szeklers in Transylvania, and the Ukrainians in Bukovina were "de-nationalized Romanians". Therefore the state had every right to enforce their return to the "bosoms of the nation". In more complex cases such as the nationalization of the Universities of Cluj and Chernowitz, under Hungarian and German administration respectiveIy, the Romanian authorities, in accord with Iocal nationaIist leaders acted swiftly. Soon after the annexation they seized both institutions and removed aII the teaching staff that refused to pledge the official oath to the Romanian state. InevitabIy the officiaI "culturaI offensive" in the new territories provoked strong reactions, especiaIIy among the once privileged groups such as the Magyars in TransyIvania and the Russians in Bessarabia. Yet, the measure of success was not only the dislodging of minorities from the control of urban centers but also the extent of the "nationalization" of the peasants themselves. The functioning of schooIs in the rural areas where the bulk of the population Iived was neither smooth nor effective. Years after the estabIishment of these schooIs there was much complaining among officiaI supervisors about the extent of schooIing in rural areas where sometimes the difficulty of recruiting pupils was as serious as finding qualified personnel. Although things got better as years passed the poIitics of cuItural assimilation proved a harsh, even unrewarding, exercise of power. The expansion of higher education in Romania was designed to serve the dual purpose of forming a qualified civil service and of producing sufficient numbers of educated Romanians to enter the professions and to chaIIenge the dominance of minorities in these areas. The increase of student numbers in the Old Kingdom and the new provinces was such that fears arose as to the graduates' professionaI careers. In addition, the inadequacies of campus facilities due to student overcrowding provided extensive ground for dissatisfaction of the student body which, after an initiaI turn to the Ieft, was channeled to the right. The rise of militant right wing groups led by Zelea Codreanu took place in this environment and was nurtured by the growing hostiIity of Romanian students against minority students, especiaIIy the Jews. High on the political agenda of this radical movement was the exclusion of students of Jewish 'extraction' from the universities, or of the imposition of numerus clausus of the purpose of limiting the numbers of Jewish students according to their overall proportion to the general population. This is where the roots of the militant fascism in Romania can be traced. Extreme violence was articulated in defiant nationalist discourses, portraying the youth and the peasants as the pillars of Romanian society as against the traditional parties, the "foreigners" and the Jews. Public approval of violent acts, including murder, not only anticipated the future ascendancy of the Iron Guard but reflected the extent of anti-Semitic sentiment which grew fast in inter-war Romanian society. Livezeanu's rich analysis of cultural politics in Greater Romania involves several themes worth discussing. The articulation of nationalist ideology in Romania during that period was directly associated with the political evigencies which the Romanian state faced in the new provinces. Contrary to pre-war irredentist illusions the addition of territories, rather than strengthening national unity, brought forward cultural fragmentation. Pitted against the domination of urban minorities, the lack of cultural homogeneity of the Romanian peasantry begged for the redefinition of national unity and led to an interesting symbolic reversal. The peasant, once related to social unrest and disobedience, now came to symbolize Romanian national unity. Against this idealized rural character of the Romanian nation the urban centers with their large minorities were often portrayed as alien cultural enclaves to be conquered eventually by the Romanian nation. In this juncture the Jew symbolized an entirely alien element both in religious and social terms. Although Livezeanu rightly focuses upon the centrality of anti-Semitism in Romanian nationalist ideology during that period, she also reminds us that this aspect was already present in Romanian nationalist discourse long before 1918. The fascist nationalist discourse was in this respect simply a variation on an oIder theme. The difference was one of degree and not of kind. The symboIic association of Romanian nation with the peasant may have smoothed the imaginary integration of peasant vaIues in the body of Romanian nationaI cuIture but tell us IittIe about peasant sentiments and the position of peasant communities vis a vis the cultural politics of the Romanian state. In fact, the book is rather sketchy on this crucial issue. Nation building is mostly discussed in relation to the assimilation, or excIusion, of non-Romanian minorities and IittIe is said of peasant reaction to policies of cuItural assimilation. Furthermore, the issue of regionaIism that often comes to the fore is mostly related to the reaction of Iocal Iiterate Romanian groups to the consequences of nationaI unification and is not discussed in connection to the shaping of regionaI identities. One question seems to me to emerge from Levezeanu's perspective. Does this dichotomous approach of nationaI assimiIation rest upon the assumption that an original pre-modem Romanian ethnic identity was already in existence and long preceded national unification? At some points the book leaves us with this impression without however discussing in detaiI what this originaI ethnic identity might be. It may well be that this issue is not central in a study focusing on cuItural politics in the 1920s but such loose ends seem to me to undermine the whole project. Emphasis upon the redefinition of national identity runs contrary to any essentialist definition of nation and ethnicity and has no room for notions such as "original identity", or "ethnic continuity". Nevertheless, Cultural Politics In Greater Romania is a very interesting book which brings to the fore cruciaI issues of nation building and ought to be carefully read by all students of Balkan nationalism. Return to Top